babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Also, the fact that the Star felt the need to weigh in and defend him in two separate editorials on the same day may show they feel it had a bit of legs too. Of course, only time will tell, but it bears watching.

Not likely. Since it's hardly a gaffe - no new taxes during the recession, try to accomplish goals without taxes if possible after the recession, but taxes if necessary.

Plus, the Toronto Star just came out swinging for him with a twopart editorial today. Few seem to see it as a problem.

From The Star:

Quote:

It can be argued that Ignatieff is coming late to this view. The House of Commons voted last month in favour of a non-binding NDP motion calling for a uniform national qualifying standard for EI. And Ignatieff missed the opportunity to use his leverage to get such a measure in the January budget. But better late than never.

I like Rex Murphy's definition of gaffe-- essentially, when a politician gives an honest answer to the question being asked. I felt a glimmer of respect for Iggy when I heard what he said about the possibility of raising taxes, but it quickly dissipated when I heard him say it would be only considered as a last resort after looking into other possibilities that would require the government to go further into debt or worse, cutting program spending. Nobody likes a tax hike, but we already know it will come because the government has to pay off the debt somehow, and why should people go without public services (especially those who need them the most and will not benefit from a tax cut) to reduce the debt? If Mr Ignatieff and other pols would practice sound economics instead of petty politics, we would be much better off. Too bad there is no party out there to represent those interests...

the government has to pay off the debt somehow, and why should people go without public services (especially those who need them the most and will not benefit from a tax cut) to reduce the debt?

Good question.

About three years ago, Ed Broadbent recapped how Liberals typically answer such questions when they're in power:

Quote:

Jean Chretien was right in fighting the increasing deficits in the early 1990s. But was it "progressive" to accumulate more than $70-billion in surpluses in the subsequent years, while child poverty increased, hospitals disintegrated, affordable housing for low-income Canadians disappeared, and our universities were starved for cash?

Ignatieff's answer to the relevant questions is very likely to be the same as Chretien's, should he ever be given the chance to offer it.

There was a magnificient piece of fluff written by Michael Valpy and published in the Gobe & Mail. The video that accompanies the article flashes enough images of Canada to fill 3 generations worth of wall calendars.

Some images flash by at such a rate, the video should carry a warning to viewers who are subject to epileptic fits. Maybe the producer specializes in subliminal advertising?

The best part though is this image that fades in and out as Ignatieff drones on about the importance integrated North American markets.

Here is something else that you may not find so funny he is likely going to be our next prime minister. Why? Bank of Canada announces historic rate cuts as Canada's economy goes down, down, down and history repeats itself when an election is called.

I did like Mr. Harper in the political arena when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations as I'm not sure about Iggy there.

I don't know if we can fault politicians for offering tax breaks to struggling families but in the long run it will be hurtful as debt climbs. However offering big tax breaks to coporations and the rich it isn't the time. Its that word tax break that has people thinking they are in the money now. And in a way they are as it will be grabbed up quickly as essestial services skyrocket as more and more Canadians find themselves on Canada's streets dying. And maybe there would not have to be talks of adding more taxes if during these hard economic times Canadians pay their share of taxes so the country can run efficiently and people do not have to die on Canada's streets do to discrimination.

No, but it shows once again that there is not much air between Iggy and Harper. And further, now that he opened that wound again, and with what's happening in the economy and particularly around people trying to collect EI, it makes them wonder what it could have been like to have a progressive coalition rather than Iggy giving credability to the statement that the coalition wasn't a legitimate option. Iggy should read a book about our parliamentary system of goverance.

What he did is give credence to the corrupt way that Harper and the Cons provided the public with disinformation and misrepresentation.

I don't know if it's a gaffe per se, but Iggy was discussed on P&P tonight for saying in a Scottish interview on Scotch independence that Quebec will eventually separate. I don't know why it's such a big deal - I've been saying as much for years now. Maybe it goes against Liberal policy? But Justin Trudeau said much the same thing recently in response to Harper's governance.

Given that the Liberals have been trying since the time of Wilfrid laurier to position themsleves as the party of national unity and as the one and only saviours of Canada - it is TOXIC to their brand for first Justin Trudeau and now Michael Ignatieff to be musing about Quebec separating like this. Right now the ONLY card the Liberals have to play against the NDP (weak a card as it is) is the idea that the Liberals are the party of trudeau with a strong stance of keeping Quebec in Canada thanks to the Clarity Act etc...these comments totally undercut that line.

it's exactly what nationalism was all about in quebec until ~2006, when harper ousted the liberals. there was a holding pattern there for a while, as the left was completely reeling at the rebellion in the regions - at both fed and prov levels. things then became even more confusing with the sweep of the ndp and the seeming genuine enthusiasm about buying into a pan-canadian progressive coalition, even as canada and quebec continued to grow further apart. following jack's death with mulcair's election as leader, we made the best move we could to sustain an interest in canada qua polity to which quebecois feel affective attachment. as independence types have been gloating over, harper is the best of all advertisements for quebec independence, demonstrating values disconnects in terms of policy AND personality. he's despised in quebec like the albertans must have despised chretien. anyway, that scotland article gives you context to the count's comments viz the reality in quebec.

progressive ndp voters in canada don't realize how crucial every ndp move - gun registry, for instance, just to grab the one in the news today - are to the national unity question. quebecois outside of the ethnic enclaves have lost all faith in the lpc and loathe the cpc, the ndp is a last chance for canada, as duceppe described the may 2nd results in his concession/resignation speech.